Let "The Journey" Begin

[Eye In The Sky]

I, too, spent a few years in the unit Class B "slave trade".  I was Ops WO (FTUC position) and HQ SM (Class A position).  I was tasked away each summer (one year from end April to Labour Day) to support RST, ARC and NRC.  Obviously, no leave was granted during that "critical" summer period.  Trying to take leave over the fall/winter training period when unit or bde exercises were planned  was often met with "you're on leave from your Class B weekday job, not your Class A weekend job.  I expect to see you out on exercise." Sometimes that came from the unit and sometimes from Bde.On the other side of the coin, before I retired in December, I was a Class A Ops O for almost 3 years.  My Ops and HQ FTUC were tasked away from early April to late August. This left me and the Class A Adjt stickhandling RFIs for the entire unit which really throws a wrench into your summer as the "returns for XXX are due ASAP" and "regret short notice" messages don't stop during RST because the Bde and Div HQ staffs are still at their desks. As a Class A shift worker who had a CAF laptop at home I occasionally had revenge on the HQ staff by responding to their "time sensitive" e-mails between 0100 - 0400, thus setting off their Blackberies in the middle of the night.  ;D

I made a point of ensuring my Ops team got their summer leave passes in to me for the CO to sign long before tasking season started.  This was quite easy as the Bde and Div were usually very last

minute in releasing tasking briques for the summer.

Most of the slots the CH HQ and unit Cl B (and RSS) were tasked to support were Res trg, no?

It makes sense, INO, that the Res should be the primary supporter of those tasking briques.  It also seems logical too that, if you were a B type, part of the reality of having the B position meant you'd be expected to support Res trg during the summer when the Cl A trg cycle was stood down until after Labour Day.  :2c:

I get it, people would have liked to sit around the armouries enjoying early dismissal, etc all summer....then who would support the Res trg, if not the full time reservists??

 

[Haggis]

Most of the slots the CH HQ and unit Cl B (and RSS) were tasked to support were Res trg, no?

At the unit level yes, Bde HQ lesser and Div HO (being a total force HQ), no. In the last three years, only my FTUC recruiter was "protected" from RST tasks for the most part.  There was always some horse trading involved.

It makes sense, INO, that the Res should be the primary supporter of those tasking briques.  It also seems logical too that, if you were a B type, part of the reality of having the B position meant you'd be expected to support Res trg during the summer when the Cl A trg cycle was stood down until after Labour Day.  :2c:

It makes perfect sense and I didn't have a problem with it, in principle. In fact, I had a couple of really good career enhancing summers in support of RST.  What I had an issue with was two things. First, the HQ driven guilt trips associated with trying to take annual leave (an entitlement, which I was quick to point out on a few occasions), during the fall/winter training year when leave was denied during RST.  Second, the inability of higher HQ to adjust it's battle rhythm during RST to account for the skeleton manning by solely Class A personnel during RST. Remember, a number of Class A officers and sr NCMs were either students at RST, ARC, NRC or delivering or supporting those activities. Yes, the Class A training cycle was stood down but in prep for the fall/winter cycle the higher HQ and CSS driven RFIs still came in, reports and returns remained due and business planning was ongoing while the units were at minimum manning.

I get it, people would have liked to sit around the armouries enjoying early dismissal, etc all summer....then who would support the Res trg, if not the full time reservists??

Yes, the occasional early dismissal, summer sports day etc. would be nice.  One could take that comment as an unfair characterization of the work ethic of the majority of FTUC.  They go balls to the wall every year for 9 to 10 months.  Should there not be a better way to manage their summers than sending them ALL away EVERY year?  Things have improved over the last couple of years, but there's still a long way to go.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't have an answer for the "All summer, every summer" aspect.  The ones I saw that escaped that were the ex-Reg force "double dippers" who had to take a mandatory 31 day break on their B class.  They'd always take it the second half of the summer and escape the tasking brique.  IIRC, one WO would take his summer leave after Canada Day, then the 31 day break and some more leave....and basically come back the week after Labour Day.  That was one of the G3 IT folks.  Irony? 

Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.  Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?

 

[Haggis]

Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.

In the past I saw a lot of "double dippers" who timed their Reg F release and transition to Class B TOS (often in the same job the CM's couldn't fill that APS) to line up their 35 day annuitant break with a portion of RST.  Cunning, to say the least, but they are not the first or last people to game the system.

Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?

And that's a perfect rationale for maintaining the XX% pay gap between Reg F and P Res.

 

[PuckChaser]

Relating this back to the pay delta between Res and Reg though, and the TOS realities/impact...in the G3 shop, there was one Reg Force Sgt and a few ex-Reg Cl B types.  Guess which one didn't have a choice when they got put onto a ROTO in Afghanistan?

Or when the Reservists all bail on the summer "no fill not accepted" taskings and the Reg Force RSS are ordered to go fill all those spots.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we are circling the drain here. 

I think the whole idea of Class B service should be scrapped.  You should be either Class A (Part time, limited liability, limited pay and benefits ) or Class C ( Full time, full liability and full pay and benefits ).  With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F.  Example got a job at HMCS Catarqui ?  Nope we need you more at HMCS XXX, off you go.  Don't want to move ?  30 days and you are back to Class A.

 

[Remius]

I think we are circling the drain here. 

I think the whole idea of Class B service should be scrapped.  You should be either Class A (Part time, limited liability, limited pay and benefits ) or Class C ( Full time, full liability and full pay and benefits ).  With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F.  Example got a job at HMCS Catarqui ?  Nope we need you more at HMCS XXX, off you go.  Don't want to move ?  30 days and you are back to Class A.

I think you would have to still have 90 day short term class bs.  For things like tasks and reserve courses.  But I like what you are saying.  Easy fix.


 

 

[dimsum]

With the idea being that Class C reservists can be ordered to go where ever, to do what ever, when ever just like the Reg F. 

So why have Class C then, if you're deployable and have long contracts?  Why not a Reg F with 3-5 year Continuing Engagements?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So why have Class C then, if you're deployable and have long contracts?  Why not a Reg F with 3-5 year Continuing Engagements?

Essentially is what I have said, I agree.  And probably what should happen anyway.  The only thing with the Class C, in my previous statement, is they can be canned easily and quickly by simply refusing employment.  Not so easy in the Reg F, currently.

I think you would have to still have 90 day short term class bs.  For things like tasks and reserve courses.  But I like what you are saying.  Easy fix.

Why not use the Class C folks for this ?  It was the intent and spirit behind my post.

 

[Remius]

Essentially is what I have said, I agree.  And probably what should happen anyway.  The only thing with the Class C, in my previous statement, is they can be canned easily and quickly by simply refusing employment.  Not so easy in the Reg F, currently.

Why not use the Class C folks for this ?  It was the intent and spirit behind my post.

So a new recruit that goes on summer task would be class C?  Or a 15 day task with an organisation?

I suppose it could work. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

So a new recruit that goes on summer task would be class C?  Or a 15 day task with an organisation?

I suppose it could work.

Yes to both.  Why not ? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Wasn't there talk in very recent years about changing (reg and res) TOS from it's current state to:

- full time, deployable;
- full time, non-deployable;
- part time, deployable; and
- part time, non-deployable.

This was part of "The Journey" program that was being considered;  deployable types would be paid 100%, non-deployable would be a reduced rate of pay...maybe this is the first step towards that?  :dunno:

 

[Blackadder1916]

Instead of all this Class A, B, or C kerfuffle, why not do something similar to the United States where the majority of Reservists (and National Guardmen) who are employed as full-time employees "supporting Reserve activities" are civilian employees who have to maintain membership as an active Reservist.  All these positions that we have filled by uniformed members filling Class B (and B annotated A) positions are, in the US, usually civil service positions that are linked to a rank and MOC.  Anyone filling these "technician" positions are paid at full-time civil service rates for doing their 9 to 5, Mon to Friday, fulltime job and during those times when their units "drill" (their one weekend a month and 14 days during the summer) they are paid for it just like every other reserve member who has a civvy job and does the reserve thing on the side.  As an example, I attended a dining-in at Travis AFB back in the early 1990s, the guest of honour was the Vice Commander of Air Force Reserve who had spent his reserve career as an "Air Reserve Technician" (ART) including his then two star job.

 

[Parabellum02]

So recently I've been hearing a lot of discussion on potential plans to make the CAF a "one component" styled military, as opposed to having two main components. (I'm not sure what the status of the supplementary reserves will be). Is there any truth to this? I've witnessed heated debate on this topic numerous times and have also heard contradicting information. Thanks. 

 

[Quirky]

Wasn't there talk in very recent years about changing (reg and res) TOS from it's current state to:

- full time, deployable;
- full time, non-deployable;
- part time, deployable; and
- part time, non-deployable.

This was part of "The Journey" program that was being considered;  deployable types would be paid 100%, non-deployable would be a reduced rate of pay...maybe this is the first step towards that?  :dunno:

More importantly, where is the Reg Force / Non-Postable? I’d take a 10% cut to not end up in Cold Lake again. Sure beats the 100% cut my spouse would take if we move back there.

 

[kratz]

Currently, the suggested Journey is stillborn.
Too many legislative amendments must be passed and we are now into the summer > election > new government > new budget priorities.
To get this back on the rails will take a minimum 2 years, IMO.

For any worthwhile, positive changes for the CAF, I've seen it take a career or more worth time. Example: Pension update, SDA / LDA amendments, Leave policy (PILL).  Changes that CAF can make or influence within it's framework have already been made. The rest of "the journey" changes are outside of the CAF and require TB and / or Parliament changes to allow for the program to exist.

If ... "the journey" program was serious, a way ahead, revised suggestions on how to achieve the stated goals...even revised goals would be published. Instead, the good idea faeries have been promoted and posted after gaining their check in the box.

 

[stellarpanther]

Without trying to sound sarcastic not all trades are essentially "civilians wearing a uniform" doing 8-4 office jobs. From a military perspective deploying abroad gives a lot of trades an opportunity to do things for real in challenging and dangerous environments. Interoperability with our allies and also gives us an environment where shitty performers are more easily identified and fired. Lots of people join the military to deploy and travel. Recruiting themes centering on filling sandbags for floods and putting out bush fires might backfire.

Politically, IMO, the ability to project some kind of military force around the globe is a make or break test whether people give a crap what a county says or not.

I agree with you that there are some people who  join because they want to deploy etc ,but it could go both ways.  More people might join if they were only going to be operating in Canada.  I'm not sure if you're Reg or Res but there are a lot of people in the Reg F that don't want to deploy.  Maybe some of the Sr. ranking mbr's here could comment on where things stand now but there was discussion and I've heard even planning underway that would allow people to opt out of deployments. It might mean a pay cut but there were different option being looked at.  I'm sure there are others here that have much more knowledge than I do and could probably explain it better.  Last year we (done on several bases) had for lack of a better word, a town hall with a lot of the JR which was basically looking at what people don't like and how things could change to make people want to stay in the CAF.  The CWO was shocked when he asked how many people wanted to deploy and only a few hands went up.  I'm not saying it's right but a lot of people these days look at the CAF as any other job.  People just have a different mentality these days.  Again I'm not saying it's right but that's how it seems.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?

 

[MilEME09]

Wanting to deploy or not, we all signed the dotted line, they say go, you go. If you have an issue with that, do not join the CAF

 

[medicineman]

Can you tell me with a straight face that you think the people who join the military and don't want to deploy outside of Canada will be okay with deploying across Canada in a time like this and leaving their family behind? Go stay in an abandoned arena and eat rations for 2 or 3 months?

Frig. I'm a civilian now and potentially have to look forward to that if things crap the bed here with this...and it wasn't in the contract when I signed up either incidentally. 

Thinking of small militaries of "neutral" countries, the Irish use their small military to punch above their weight class by deploying units on UN missions - in fact you are required to endorse you're willing to do at least 2 tours (IIRC) when you sign up or you can kiss your job goodbye (a big deal in a country with high unemployment).  This helps keep Ireland visible and relevant on the world stage AND keeps their professional military experienced. 

:2c:

MM